User talk:EvergreenFir

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! EvergreenFir, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green High School

August 26, 2013 Hello, EvergreenFir. I added a reference to the link on the US News page. On the page, it shows the school ranking and the AP program information for Green High School. Wikipedia:Citing sources says that my reference is called an inline citation and is a proper form of citation since the rest of the article is cited that way. Why does this not count as a citation? How do I properly provide a citation for the page? Thanks

Gravity Falls Episode List

The Gravity Falls episode synopsises that you used for the page tended to have a few spelling errors and overly long sentences. I felt it was necessary to fix them with a little better structure and add additional details about the episodes to them (example, the one on "Bottomless Pit" doesn't mention the three stories it contains). You can say that what I am putting together is "unsourced", but on Wikipedia people can edit the badly edited synopsises on TV show episodes from Disney themselves. The "Duplicate Detector" report that I kept on there isn't going to help your defense. I changed them back to what I had edited on that page. Hope you understand this message. 50.68.27.121 (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A welcome and an advice

Hello, EvergreenFir

Welcome to Wikipedia. I'd like to offer you an advice, even though you didn't ask for it: Consider asking your questions about whys and hows of Wikipedia in a venue where multiple editors can read and reply. Editors are human and may make mistake; especially in answering you. But when multiple editors answer, or the answer is posted where multiple editors see it, the risk reduces. Wikipedia:Teahouse is a great place for newcomers because they take care to be more polite. Later, you can ask questions in the various Wikipedia:Noticeboards and Wikipedia:Village pump boards.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talk back

Hello, EvergreenFir. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 02:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

One more answer...

Hello, EvergreenFir. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 02:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, EvergreenFir. You have new messages at Dogmaticeclectic's talk page.
Message added 10:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello EvergreenFir, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Ancient Aliens has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gravity Falls may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

* '''Stanford "Grunkle Stan" Pines''' ([[Alex Hirsch]],<ref name=medianetinfo/> the great uncle of Dipper and Mabel Pines. He runs and

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, EvergreenFir. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 07:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reversion

Not sure why you reverted my edit, which was both on point and constructive. Pointing out the flaws in an argument is not something that should be reverted, and I'm pleased that your reversion has been undone. Can you offer a cogent explanation for having reverted my edit? Dyrnych (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Manning

I'm confident they didn't intentionally alter my comment — there's just so much discussion being posted so quickly at the moment that it was just an accidental edit conflict. And I was in the process of adding additional content to my comment anyway. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even with that comment I'm still fairly sure Dyrnych was still describing the comment that they were trying to post further down the page; I'm still not sure they even realize that they altered my post in the process. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct. I had no intention whatsoever of altering your comment, and frankly I'm not even sure how it happened. Apologies for the edit conflict, though. Dyrnych (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies as well (as mentioned on your talk page Dyrnych) for "biting". EvergreenFir (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, Manning isn't discharged yet. The sentence directing dishonorable discharge will not be executed until the ACCA (and potentially the CAAF) reviews the case, then the GCMCA will order the discharge per R.C.M. 1113(C). It'll probably take a couple years. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:List of Gravity Falls episodes

I'm confused as to how any of my edits were viewed as non-constructive by you. I transcluded the list of episodes from the respective season article, which was created recently and has garnered other editors expanding the article. If you disagree with this creation, please discuss it on the respective talk page. And please, for future reference, read this helpful essay as to why you shouldn't template the regulars, as you may have non-malliciously did in my talk page. Thank you. — Whisternefet ^(talk/_contribs) 05:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright, no harm done. I got started on working on the page a few days ago, and have expanded it a great deal, which will help establish the series' notability, and act as a template for further season articles created for the show. :) — Whisternefet ^(talk/_contribs) 22:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, it's standard practice to paraphrase or otherwise write 'from scratch' episode/plot summaries, as to prevent accusations of plagiarism. I encountered a similar problem when I was working on a Regular Show season article, where I got confused when some of my edits were perceived as plagiarism, as I had copy-pasted the short summaries from TV Guide. I ended up tinkering with the structures of the summaries, so they weren't direct copies.
And as far as those summaries appearing on the main list, it's just the way the template is designed, to exclude the summaries if the list has an article of its own (see Template:Episode list for a better explanation for this). That's standard as well, just look at any big TV's episode list article, and they're nearly identical. Hope that helps. — Whisternefet ^(talk/_contribs) 22:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with direct quotations is that, in this case, if the copied text makes up the bulk of the text in the article (which large amounts of episode summaries tend to do), then it no longer constitutes as Fair Use, even if a reference is provided. And you're welcome, sorry if I may have startled you there, I just want this article to be in good standing, because it's relatively empty, although I think I'm doing a good job with it now. Maybe even you can help! — Whisternefet ^(talk/_contribs) 22:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it's probably fine as is, I copied the lettered prefix from one of the episode articles for consistency sake. Though if you can dig up some official codes that would be great. — Whisternefet ^(talk/_contribs) 04:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:edit

Hi EvergreenFir, I'm not sure why you reverted an IP here. In the previous edit summaries, you ask the IP to include a citation, which it then does in the subsequent edits, which you also reverted. I'm not sure what more referencing you want the IP to add, but it seems to me like the reference they added is fine. Spencer^T♦C 06:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

OK. I have seen that. There was a spelling mistake but never mind. I understand this discussion is now closed and sealed. Michael Haephrati (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, EvergreenFir. You have new messages at JDDJS's talk page.
Message added 03:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

JDDJS (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, EvergreenFir. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, EvergreenFir. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, EvergreenFir. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Eurocreme

I recently came across the original post by VictorJames123. This section really needs to be included on Eurocreme's page. How can it remain. It's all alleged information, but many people are aware of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaksonmk (talk • contribs) 04:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you know there are many post which have alleged information. If solid evidence was available, then there would be a court case against eurocreme, due to the child pornography which they produce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaksonmk (talk • contribs) 05:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lakdfhia

if bias is supposed to neutral, why is skew in favor of people who think he funny? he not but those people get no represent on page! say he comedian without qualification is NOT neutral! is not vandal to question subjective qualifier for what man does! (have not been told if making comment right, sorry if this wrong) Lakdfhia (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comedian is implications in use, mostly that is funny. few words are no popular connotation implied on use (politician corrupt, for instance. not true always, is implied in use) so natural subjectivity is not possible. is always necessary to provide counter point of view for neutrality to be understood on part of reader. in terms like wittgenstein, you take person drawer, then funny drawer, then comedian drawer. is how comment is perceived. achieve neutrality by drawing attention to presumption on part of reader, causing question of what they insert into words themselves. Lakdfhia (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please to address comments on nature of language. why is nature of discourse ignored in neutrality? is not achievable if speaker ignores mandate to give neutrality to audience. neutrality destroyed moment speaker not recognize their responsibility in elevating. opinion implied in word comedian. can only override implication by drawing attention. true neutrality unachievable if opinion dressed up in fact clothing. Lakdfhia (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Mohonk Mountain House, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Casason (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]